[linux-elitists] Ten Reasons- final draft

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Tue May 8 02:24:07 PDT 2001


on Tue, May 08, 2001 at 12:15:27AM -0400, Brooklyn Linux Solutions CEO (ruben@mrbrklyn.com) wrote:

I hope this isn't finalized yet.  You might give more than an hour or so
for review, particularly in a small group and after midnight for most of
the US.

Not all my comments need be considered actionable.

Comments and corrections below.

> In the summer of 1991, in a story now familiar with almost anyone
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Style gripe.  If everyone knows, why are you telling them.  If they
don't, you're lying.  This is sloppy writing.  Preferred "in a now
legendary story" or somesuch.  You're not quite committing the capital
sin of "As you all know" or "As everyone knows", but it's close.

> remotely connected to the computing industry,  a young Linus Torvalds
> was finishing up the prototype of his revolutionary new operating
> system kernel in Helsinki, Finland.  In what is very much an
> American-like tale, the young Mr. Torvalds, with little more than his
> talent, his determination, and a vision, began a quest that fateful
> summer which would succeed wildly beyond the anyone's expectations.

Technically, he began the quest some six or eight months before.  By
summer he'd completed a rudimentary kernel.  The history is recounted in
several places, I'd expect you can find it online.

> With the help of his friends on the internet, Linus let loose upon the
> world a software design which would build into an industry, and his
> vision has been responsible for the generation of thousands of jobs
> world-wide, feeding families and empowering individuals to produce
> sustaining wealth through freedom of the human spirit.  Disney could
> not write fables as perfect as this.

Disney doesn't write fables, it appropriates public domain materials
then extends copyright duration fivefold to protect its sacred profits.

> However, the benefactors and leaders of Linus's vision, need to come to
> grips with the essential truth that the conditions upon which Helsinki
> Miracle was dependent are threatened today.  If any of missing these
> needed conditions did not exist it would have prevented the development
> of Linux today.  The three essential conditions converged in the summer
> of 1991: political freedom, technological maturity, and economic
> opportunity. In 1991, all three of these things nicely converged to
> produce Linus and Linux.

I enumerate these slightly differently, though I'm also speaking of a
slightly different circumstance.  See, e.g.:  

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=comments&sid=2000/12/31/19042/985&   

(Scroll down to "The factors:").

My five factors:

  - Development methodology:  bazaar
  - Software architecture:  modular construction
  - Legal framework:  free software licensing
  - Economic model:  cost/benefit favoring F/S development
  - Cheap or free networking:  the Internet
  - Established open standards:  Unix/Posix, GNU utilities,
    communications protocols, RFCs, HW, etc.

> Prior to 1991, independent breakthroughs such as Linux could not have
> taken place in the voluntary atmosphere of free software simply
> because the networking technology needed for worldwide remote
> cooperation simply hadn't been matured enough to facilitate the social
> process which Linux embodies.  The community couldn't form because the
> information infrastructure had not yet existed for them to do so.
> Once this technological barrier was reached, a technologically based
> hackers community was inevitable.
> 
> The second condition which existed in 1991 was that hardware in the
> personal computing space was largely compliant to opens standards. Many
> regard this as an accident, but when we examine the development of the
> PC computer, especially the governments insistence of a competitive
> industry in PC hardware without monopoly, the standardization was a
> natural outcome of the political expectations of the day.  Compacts
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
Compaq's

> cleanroom reverse engineering of the IBM PC was legally protected in
> statutory and judicial law.  

Well.  Compaq established this, IIRC, through legal battles.  But they
did set the precedent for cleanroom reëngineering.

> This did not have to be the case. Compacts reverse engineering could
                                    ^^^^^^^^
> have been viewed as a patent or copyright infringement.  Had it been
> so, it is unlikely that Linus would have had enough information about
> the specifics of PC hardware to create Linux.  Nor would he have the
> right to access  the needed device drivers to make the affair worth
> pursuing. In addition, even if he gets past this barrier, use of
> closed protocols could have been viewed as a violation of the
> copyrighted material and exploitation of trade secrets.  The only
> thing which prevented this obstruction of Linux, aside from government
> anti-trust action, was 'Fair Use'. Fair Use assured the political
> freedom necessary for Linus to produce Linux.

Was the underlying architecture of the PC that critical to the design of
GNU/Linux?  I don't dispute that a cheap, open, architecture is one of
the requisites I've lumped into "open standards", but I don't recall it
playing that significant a role.  I'm largely ignorant here though.

> The final thing which made Linux possible was a proper economic
> environment to stimulate innovation.  The fact that Linus was able to
> afford getting the necessary education which gave him the background
> to be able to investigate the construction of an operating system is
> often overlooked.  Linus was not only a well fed graduate student when
> he created Linux, but he was also able to afford a PC to hack on, and
> money for books, and money for information on computer sciences.

I'm not sure I'm buying this line.  Computing has become ever cheaper
and more ubiquitous since Linus's time.  But it's threatened by possibly
becoming subject to closed HW architectures (so I contradict what I've
just said above).  Also, if Linus *had* been sufficiently wealthy, he'd
have been able to afford:

  - A more powerful PC that could have run DOS / Legacy MS Windows
    properly (suitably qualified).

  - A true Unix system.

...or another form of satisficing that would have relieved the itch he'd
felt.  Linus was balanced on that sacred cusp of enough resources
to see what he wanted, but not enough to actually have it, but _just_
enough that by striving personally, he might attain his goal.

> ***He was in an environment which could afford to freely offer
> copyrighted information.***

Explain and expand.

>   He was able to access others' works in his production of the kernel.
> Journals and Libraries promoted his efforts both through publication of
> the resultant works and through a steady feed of reliable information.
> The economic conditions which Linus experienced were designed to
> encourage Linus to exploit his potential as a world citizen and in so
> doing, added to our own heritage.
> 
> The title of this essay is  "Ten Reason Why Fair Use is Important to
> Geek Linux Users".  Nothing that has been said appears to address the
> title. What needs to be understood is that Linus, in today's
> environment, would not be able to produce Linux.  The Linuses are
> facing an escalating hostility to future Linuses. Free enterprise in
> the computing field today is coming to an end.  We are destroying the
> right to innovate.
> 
> When the internet erupted onto the public consciousness, the potential
> for acquiring information became immediately apparent to any of it's
> users. Internet access has changed the way people today think about
> acquiring information.  Back in the old day, in the dark ages, as far
                                          ^^^
I remember the old day.  It was a lonely day.  Stuck in the wide open
prairie, with the gras all around, the wind stirring the leaf in the
tree.  The cloud scudding across the sky....

Meinst du, <<days>>, veleicht?

> back as the middle 1980's, people toiled in a limited world, limited
> to our block, our families, our town and our friends.  Reliable
> information was scarce and expensive.  If I was discussing with
> someone the historical background behind the painting of the Mona
> Lisa, my options were very limited.  I could go down to the local
> library and look up the Mona Lisa in the card catalog, hoping to find
> a book on the topic.  Failing that, I am stuck.  Specialized libraries
> on Art History were simply unavailable, and institutions lucky enough
> to have such a detailed and specialized library had limited access to
> the general public.  Journals on specialized material were expensive
> when they exist, unarchived or unavailable.  More importantly, finding
> a community of people with expertise in the area of interest required
> nothing sort of a lifetime academic membership in an reputable
> institution of higher learning.
> 
> The internet has turned that all on it's ear for two reasons.  The
                                      ^^^^
its

> cost of publication on the internet is very low and the freedom to
> share ideas is protected.  Previously, when someone had an expertise
> on a topic, or a passion for a topic, that person would have years of
> research and generalized knowledge on the topic locked up in his
> person, with little or no way to make the information available to an
> interested public.  

...or an uninterested one, but I digress....

> This individuals full potential is bottled up.  First he needs to
       ^^^^^^^^^^^
individual's

> generate a manuscript in the hopes that the manuscript fills a
> particular need in the marketplace of information.  It gets submitted
> to a gatekeeper who controls the flow of information to the public.
> This gatekeeper is either a publisher, or a program manager.
> Censorship of the work is then applied to the work for the benefit of
> the publisher.  Finally, if everything goes right, the censored
> information is made available to the public unidirectionally.
> Feedback is neither required or desired.  The closest we get to peer
> review or public conversation is the censored Letter to the Editor
> section of the press and the heavily censored talk radio phenomena
> which started in the 1970's.

True to an extent, however there was self publishing, pamphleting,
underground 'zines, xeroxed treatises, samizdat in the Soviet Bloc....
The Xerox machine did as much to topple the Soviet Union as did SDI, and
at a far greater ROI.  Faxes, toward the end of the period.  Far less
effective than the Internet, to be sure, but not quite as grim as you
make out.

> Obviously the process is fraught with abuse and efforts to correct the
> problem in the traditional media have been unsuccessful in the face of
> a demoralizing assault by private economic interests on the public
> space.  Spin doctors belittle the use of public set asides in the
> media. Most of the efforts are being driven out of public view.
> Public Access television, editorial broadcasts, and even guarantees of
> children's television programming, and balanced political air time
> have been driven from our publicly owned broadcasting channels by the
> private interests which have been entrusted with them.
> 
> Over time, failure of the public to protect the public domain, in
> combination with a quirk in our available technology, has eroded our
> participatory civic lives.  The foundations of Democracy dissolving.
> Until now, there have been two means of mass communication.  There has
> been the Telephone and Broadcasting.  

Also:

  - Publishing, mentioned previously
  - Public speaking, particularly the Free Speech movement of the late
    1960s.
  - Activist groups.  When physical proximity was required to foster
    ideas, people clustered.  Communes, workgroups, collectives,
    organizations.
  - Workgroups.  Effectively used today by Scientologists and related
    groups.
  - Ham, shortwave, and CB radio.
  - Pirate radio.

...not necessarily targeted at a mass audience, but reasonably
effective at getting word out in a big way.

> The technologies involved with Broadcasting have always required large
> capitalization by centralized organizations to successfully publish.

Not particularly.  A low-wattage transmission station can be set up
for a cost within range of the average Joe.  In an urban area it can hit
a large audience.  In a rural area with suitable topography, a large
area.

> Examples of this are Movie producers which needed production budgets
> and distribution channels, Book Publishers which need print houses,
> advertising budgets and book outlets, Television Broadcasters who
> needed radio equipment and studio facilities, and so on.  All these
> technological factors prevented individuals from participating in
> publication.

Indies produce movies on budgets of a few tens of thousands of dollars.
Not dirt cheap (and this can be done for less), but attainable.  The
real costs are in distribution.  Still Warren Miller and Bruce Brown may
not have been preaching social revolution, but they were pretty
effective at projecting ski and surf to the masses on relatively low
budgets.

> The telephone as a form of mass media has been more personal than the
> Radio, Television and Book Publishing.  The nature of the telephone
> connects two individuals where each party is a receiver of information
> and a publisher of information.  This wildly successful invention
> encourages people to express themselves to others.  In fact,
> telephoneitis is a common disease which inflicts young women between
> the ages of 9 and 17.  It's spread is a painful experience every
> parent comes to dread.  And it is closely related to the new malady
> 'chatroom addictionitis' which is sweeping bedrooms and studies halls
> across America.
> 
> Today, we are experiencing the greatest increase in general literacy
> in a 100 years.  The internet is a convergence of traditional mass
> media and the telephone.  The history of communication in the 20th
> Century has been one of decreasing literacy.  Increasingly dependent
> on receiving information through the mass media, and decreasingly
> reliant on the written word for personal communication, our generation
> is simply not as literate as our grandparents.

"Content is not king".  You may enjoy picking through:

    http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/networks.html

Point I'd made in conversation some years back:  the Internet is *not*
a broadcast medium.  This isn't its strength, this isn't its main
value, and trying to force it into that slot ain't gonna to work.

> The internet has changed all that. Who among us today is not a
> publisher?  Our appetite today for information is enormous and our
> quest to provide information has reached an unprecedented scale.  The
> growth of the internet has turned the global village into the global
> street corner.  Everyone today lives on the same block.  We all share
> the same stoop. And we have discovered that we all have an
> unparalleled need to heard and to share.  As a world community we  are
> in the process of discovering that sharing information is the basic
> truth of our existence. The ability to cooperate, share and trust to
> the degree that humans do is unprecedented  in nature.  Cooperation
> and communication is a genetically tattooed trait which has enabled
> and defined us as a species. It is what make us human. [see PBS Nature
> for annotation]
> 
> We have now reached a critical stage in the history of Mankind.  

All stages are critical.

> A new dawn for mankind is stretching across the horizon.  And if our
> new technology will continue to be a tool in enabling mankind or a
> tool to shackle us is very much in question.  

The answer is yes.

Flip 'tude notwithstanding, I feel your pain.  Wait, no, that was the
last electoral humiliation.  I, um, ah, appreciate your concernitude.

> Linux user and hackers are at the very core of the debates and choices

The _very_ core?  Can't we just be at the core?

> we make for our future.  The economic interests built around
> unidirectional mass media, and which have abused the public trust in
> the past are threatened by the new technology which is ending their
> monopoly on publishing information.  Well funded and with political
> clout beyond their importance, the publishing industry is willing to
> use technologically and the law to strip all privacy and every aspect
> of control of information from the public.  What they are demanding
> and receiving is the privatization of human civilization itself
> through the complete control of the future venue of that culture, the
> modern computer. In doing so, they are making it criminal to
> communicate about computer infrastructure, or to explore the
> foundations of the technology that we use each day to interface with
> others.  Future Linuses have to contend with the efforts to prevent

Actually, given that "Linus" is a Greek name ("flaxen haired"), "Linii"
might be a better plural....No, that's Latin....

> ownership of information.  Exploration and reverse engineering is
> today a felony.

In limited contexts, yet untested in the court (DMCA
anti-circumvention).  More pointedly, Connectix has won a pretty
decisive round of lawsuits against Sony in the past twelve months
securing the right to reverse engineer software and hardware.

> Many of us in the computing field is well aware of the issues involved.
>  We have vented our frustration at the growing threat the the free flow
> of information on slashdot and other venues.  When the group 2600 was
                    ^^^^^^^^
Slashdot.  Capitalize proper names.

> taken to trial for the publication of the DeCSS source code in New
> York in the Summer of 2000, many hackers showed up to protest the
> infringement of fair use and free speech by the Digital Millennium
> Copyright Act of 1998.  But the community has not yet been able to
> organize effective political action to protect itself and our free
> society.
> 
> Even worse, there is a large segment of the Linux User community who
> consider discussion of copyright and fair use outside the scope of the
> discussion of Linux.  When the topic is opened for discussion on
> various Linux User Group mailing lists, some list members complain
> that the issue is noise.  Even the much exalted Silicon Valley Linux
> Users Group has suffered from this.  NYLUG, the New York Linux Users
> Group, and LXNY, her sister free software group, are generally active
> in this area and it reflects on their mailing list.  However, at
> times, even they suffer from this same malady.
> 
> So, the case needs to be made to enumerate exactly why the use of free
> software is essentially tied to political action on Fair Use issues.
> Each Linux user needs to understand that the freedom that they are
> experiencing in choosing to use Free Software, either software like
> Linux, or Software of their own design, is a historical accident which
> the modern mass media ogonolopy is trying to extinguish with a
> reckless lack of regard for the chilling effect on our political
> freedom.

This has all been a preamble.  I'm at line 378 of a 631 line document
(at this point).  You might want to shorten things by a factor of two to
four.

> So here are the 10 reasons every Linux User must join in political
> action to protect you right to run free software:
> 
> 
> 1: Computer Engineers and Programmer must have the freedom to practice
> their trade.
> 
> The right to practice your trade is being jeopardized as your access to
> software and hardware is diminishing. Software intelligence systems are
> on the drawing boards designed to circumscribe and to diminish the
> information and access needed to touch or interact with software and
> hardware systems.
> 
> [http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/15684.html] [
> http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/solutions200.html#two]

Please provide headlines with links.  Context Is Good®.

> This is the same as a Carpenter who could use a hammer only with size
> 6 IBM brand nails, and who is prevented from using his own hammer on
> IBM size 6 nails, even if he built his hammer himself.

Use a nail gun lately?  Not quite as bad, but as tools get specialized,
vendor lock-in usually increases.

> 2: Computer Programmers must have the right to freely use their
> property as they see fit.
> 
> There is today a basic question of who owns your computer, software and
> media. Obviously, if someone broke into your home and stole your
> computer, Time Warner would not call to police to report the crime.
> Simply because you have an mp3 of a song that they own copyrights to on
> it's hard drive does not give them ownership of your computer. Nor
  ^^^^
its

> would IBM be able to press charges against the thief because their hard
> drives are installed in the system.  But IBM and Time Warner want to
> prevent you from reading the information stored on your hard drive and
> prevent your access to that data. [document] Soon they will be able to
> completely prevent the installation of any software on the hard drive,
> including the OS, without complete prior approval of the manufacturer
> of the system.  Today, there are already system that force to buy
> software that you don't want.  In the future, it will be illegal to
> even remove that software from your system to install different
> software, and the software will turn itself off if a fee isn't [ms
> hailstorm] maintained. Essentially, this will be as if they sent to
> your home henchmen to steal your computer.
> 
> 
> 
> 3: Computer Programmers must have the ability to innovate new software
> design
> 
> It's a common falsehood that innovation is completely new and
> unrelated to previous works.  

I'd put it differently "There's a commonly held misconception that
technological change is revolutionary.  It's not, it's evolutionary."

> Isaac Newton famously said, "If I've seen so far, it is because I have
> stood on the shoulders of giants".  Newton was clearly one of the most
> original and creative thinkers in world history, but this might have
> been Newton's greatest observation.  Even great thinkers like Newton
> could not have made innovative contributions to humanity without
> derivative (no pun intended) works.  Programmers must have the right
> to innovate.  And this implies that they must have fair use access to
> derive new works from previously published works.  The ability to
> improve existing software through study and experimentation is the
> fuel of software innovation.
> 
> 
> 4:  Computer Programmers, Users and Power Users must have free accesses
                                                                 ^^^^^^^^

access

> to their hardware.
> 
> 
> Imagine the following Star Trek episode.  The Starship Enterprise is
> under attack from an unknown and relentless alien spaceship.  They
> manage to defeat the shielding and are boarding the ship.  As all looks
> hopeless, the Captain barks out orders and commands the ships computer,
> "Computer lock out all command functions - Pickard 185Alpha". The
> computer responds, "Failure to comply.  Copyrighted material discovered
> on your IBM hard drives. You are not permit access to this area of your
> computer.  This attempt to block access of copyrighted material by the
> copyright holder is not permitted.  This incident is being reported to
> IBM  and the content holders. User interface to communications  is
> being locked out and IBM is being notified through subspace.   Too
> Bad... Please see current licensing agreement for further information"

Cute story.  Stallman's copyright dystopia "The Right to Read" is
another good example.  It's already sounding one hell of a lot less
fantstic than it did four years ago:

    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

> The damage of having a vital communications tool which is privately
> owned being controlled by a powerful government sponsored third party
> is so obvious that it amazes me that anyone in a position of
> responsible government can be considering allowing this for the purpose
> of protecting something as of questionable value as the copyright.  If
> Computer Users do not have free access to their property, then their
> ability to reverse engineer is destroyed. In addition, these hardware
> and software lockouts prevent high end computer experts from protecting
> the public from eavesdropping, and abuses designed to spy on the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 5: Computer users must have  uninhibited access to media they own.
> 
> Linux users are impacted negatively in two ways when they don't have
> uninhibited access to their media.  First, if the media which they own
> is inhibited in it's use, then they can not develope or innovate the
> needed software for the systems that they create.  It locks them into
> purchasing software that they choose not to have in order to live their
> daily lives.  For example, a Linux Users who is a Dental Student at NYU
> College of Dentistry finds that books are no longer available for
> dental education.  Instead, all dental textbooks are engraved on an
> encrypted dvd viewable only on a proprietary OS with proprietary
> software.  In addition, students would be forced to purchase more
> material than needed and loose their rights to second sale.  In fact,
> this was a stated goal of the vital books project at NYU College of
> Dentistry. [http://www.vitalviewer.com/Harcourt.html - see below] Now
> our Linux user have to buy a whole second system just to participate in
> his education at considerable cost.  Such a break down of fair use
> prevents the use of anything other than officially approved computers.
> 
> 6: Computer users must have the right to participate in the economy.
> 
> Media outlets have been fortunate until recently to have the ability to
> push material on the public in a one way direction. Data goes from
> producer to consumer.  Computers break that very profitable model for
> distributors of mass media.  The public, in the old model, is perceived
> as consumer widgets. No thought is given to the public as producers of
> media, or for that matter, producers of economic production.  Computers
> have unshackled the public from being forced to endure the intrusive
> push of pre-censored media and advertizing.  Experienced computer users
> quickly transcend passive monitoring of information for a model of two
> way interaction.
> 
> No longer is it a necessary by product of the economy for us to suffer
> disenfranchised pockets of communities which interact with the large
> community only as consuming widgets.  Linux gives these users the
> opportunity to be producers in our economy and to become wealth
> builders.  Linux allows these users to produce software, images,
> networks, advertizement, animation, recordings, video, and  more,
> without having to face cartel efforts to pigeon hole them into a
> consumers role, or crush there efforts under forced upgrades and
> unchecked per license fees, and limited access to tools..
> 
> The ability of this growing subset of the Linux user community to join
> in our economy as producers means they have to climb over the hurdle of
> diminished fair usage of the cultural artifacts stored on their
> computers.  The fabric of their existence,  nurtured for decades on a
> mindless consumerism, is the current pop culture which they have been
> bombarded with.  A head on collision exists between the use of the only
> cultural artifacts of import to these communities, and the felony
> charges for infringed of access control that currently exists under the
> DMCA.  DJ's using Linux to create music mixes will be felonies.
> Programmers altering sound and images, or creating the tools to do so,
> will be likewise, criminals.  This group is crippled without access of
> these materials for use in derivative works.
> 
> 7: Computer Engineers and Programers must have educational freedom.
> 
> The future of education looks truly bleak at this moment.  And the
> future of computer engineering and programming looks bleakest.  Unlike
> students of physics and chemistry who have general academic freedom in
> the discovery of new sciences and mathematics, and are free to make
> discoveries which aid in the production of newer and more portable
> atomic weapons, computer science students are faced with the prospect
> of having all knowledge on the topic of computer sciences sealed in
> encrypted DVD's accessible only on a pay as you go and need to know
> basis.  In addition, all the materials and platforms in which they
> need to do legitamite research and discovery will be sealed off from
> student access.  Today's legal and technical infrastructure is
> destroying the ability to produce the discoveries of tomorrow. It's
> even possible that in the near future that their won't be enough
> people trained to understand the technology built today to even access
> materials and information blocked by our new found love affair with
> access control.  Capable engineers and cryptographers don't grow on
> trees. They need freedom to be nourished developed.
> 
> 8: Computer users must have a freedom of choice of software and
> hardware products.
> 
> As computer users, we all have different needs and abilities.  Free
> choice between computer systems and client programs is essential to
> assure the possibility for users to discover the best tools to solve
> their individual problems.  Essential to this freedom of choice is
> common standards for media exchanges.  Freedom to choose between
> products is threatened by hardware and software lockouts which prevent
> the free movement of information from platform to platform.  These are
> the lockouts designed to prevent fair use of copyrighted materials in
> the digital age.  These lockouts will prevent use of unapproved
> systems and programs on specific hardware. This ability to read
> material on unapproved platforms will also be eliminated, including
> instructions to program systems or to interface with hardware, or to
> play your favorite music or video.  We are facing a future where if
> you want to read the Wall Street Journal in the morning, you'll have
> to use a Microsoft product with an IBM storage medium.
> 
> 9:  Computer programers must have the freedom to innovate.
> 
> Microsoft has been claiming this for months.  Individual programers
> have needed this for years.  Fair Use is the only thing protecting
> programers from being locked out of their systems by overreaching
> corporations and private concerns.  Fair Use is the legal guarantees
> that programmers have assuring full usage of their legally purchased
> machines.  Innovation of software and hardware demands unapproved uses
> of the systems. Having to ask permissions prior to innovation would be
> the equivalent of Gallilo asking the Church for permission to point
> his telescope at Jupiter before being permitted to legally doing so.
> 
> Like your computer?  Like to use Linux?  Like to write new interfaces
> for your hand held device?  Your right to do so is called....Fair
> Use..
> 
> 
> 10: Computer Users Must have the right to reverse engineer.
> 
> Ultimately, this is the real test of fair use.  The ability to reverse
> engineer any system is fundamental to free software.  If systems are
> wrapped in encrypted firmware which prevent fair use access, then
> there is no chance of reverse engineering.  In addition, reverse
> engineering mandates reverse engineering without prior permission of a
> devices designer.  Reverse engineering is given lip service in the
> 1998 DMCA, but no practical adoption of a methodology of fair use has
> yet emerged which the courts have yet to recognize.  Simply, it is
> impossible to uphold the DMCA and uphold it's access control
> provisions.  Access is the key to fair use and to reverse engineering.
> Access control is directly in conflict with Fair Use, Open Source
> Software, and the freedom of humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________
> 
> 
> Vital Books Qoute:
> 
> 
> 
> The agreement between Harcourt and VSTi will allow Vital Source to
> bundle digital versions of Harcourt's Mosby, W. B. Saunders, and
> Churchill Livingstone dental school textbooks
> 
> along with each participating dental school's internal curriculum
> course manuals on a single DVD. Using the VSTi VitalviewerTM XML
> browser, students and faculty will be able to
> 
> quickly and easily access content across all four years of their
> curriculum enabling them to find specific subject matter in a highly
> structured, context-sensitive search environment.
> 
> 
> In addition to enhancing the student/faculty experience with reference
> and resource aids, the VSTi service creates a copyright compliant
> environment on campus, giving Harcourt Health
> 
> Sciences the ability to maximize student and faculty use of their
> products in a cost-effective manner. "
> _______________________________________________
> linux-elitists 
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-elitists

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20010508/a31c2e47/attachment.pgp 


More information about the linux-elitists mailing list